W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2002

ConegFragment (was Re: Early draft of Architecture Document for your review

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2002 15:37:26 -0400
To: www-tag@w3.org
Message-ID: <20020704153726.L17874@www.markbaker.ca>

The document looks really good.  I'm quite encouraged.

There was one thing that I read that surprised me though, section 1.4.1;

"ConegFragment: Authors SHOULD NOT use HTTP content negotiation for
different media types that do not share the same fragment identifier
semantics."

For some resources, it may very well be important to maintain a
consistent fragment identifier syntax.  But for most others, it isn't a
concern, and the value of using content negotiation for differing
formats could easily outweigh it.

I also don't consider this an architectural issue, though I expect that
DanC and TimBL probably do, due to the different definition of URI (from
RFC 1738) that they often use, including in their work on RDF (as Roy
pointed out).

But my suggestion would be to remove it from the document, or at the
very least, tone it down to a "you should consider this" level.

Thanks.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Thursday, 4 July 2002 15:26:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:09 GMT